path: root/meeting-logs/20080911.txt

20:00 <   Halcy0n@> Alright, so roll-call...who is here?
20:01 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v Cardoe] by Halcy0n
20:01 <dertobi123@> <-
20:02  *  Calchan is proxying for Betelgeuse 
20:02 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v Calchan] by Halcy0n
20:02 <   Halcy0n@> Yup, saw the email earlier as well.  Thanks
20:02 <dberkholz|@> here
20:03 <   Halcy0n@> jokey or cardoe?
20:04 <    Cardoe+> sorry
20:04 <    Cardoe+> Halcy0n: technically I'm not on the roll call yet since Diego resigned so I'm not officially taking his position
20:05 <    Cardoe+> Halcy0n: and you guys have to vote for the next person on the ballot to take his place
20:05 <   Halcy0n@> Cardoe: true, but its good you are here anyhow since that's the first discussion point.
20:05 <dertobi123@> i tried to call jokey on his cellÃphone, no success :/
20:05 <   Halcy0n@> Well, is everyone that is here ready to start then?  jokey and lu_zero seem to be MIA.
20:07 -!- Halcy0n changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: Next meeting: 2000 UTC Sept. 11 - Agenda: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_619e8ac19efadb77a5c24add7a7b529b.xml - #1 Filling the empty slot
20:07 <    Cardoe+> oo Halcy0n has the shiny gavel today
20:07 <   Halcy0n@> Cardoe: well, since it looks like dberkholz|bb is on his blackberry, I figured it would be easier if I took the lead :P
20:09 <   Halcy0n@> So, last time the council voted in the next person in line when a council member retired.  Is everyone that is present ready to vote on whether or not to follow what was done last time?  This would mean Cardoe would become our 7th council member in Diego's place.
20:09 <dberkholz|@> we only need 4 to vote
20:10 <    Cardoe+> as a reference point, http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel.announce/243 are the results from the election officials
20:10 <dberkholz|@> I'm ready
20:10 <dertobi123@> <- ready to vote
20:10 <   Calchan+> ready too
20:11 <dberkholz|@> mark?
20:11 <   Halcy0n@> Yup.  It has a yes from me.
20:11 <dberkholz|@> Same here -- yes
20:11 <   Calchan+> yes from me too
20:11 <dertobi123@> yes here, too
20:12 <   Halcy0n@> Congrats Cardoe :)
20:12 <dberkholz|@> cardoe: welcome to the caba... er, council!
20:12 <    Cardoe+> heh thank you
20:12 <   Calchan+> Cardoe, all other choices were worse ;o)
20:13 <    Cardoe+> Calchan: hah. Sounds like a Futurama quote
20:13 <dberkholz|@> remember to get the mail alias updated
20:13 <   Calchan+> is this effective now ?
20:13 <dberkholz|@> yep
20:13 <   Calchan+> ok
20:13 -!- Halcy0n changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: Next meeting: 2000 UTC Sept. 11 - Agenda: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_619e8ac19efadb77a5c24add7a7b529b.xml - #2 PMS as a draft standard of EAPI 0
20:14 <dberkholz|@> since we got conflict resolution figured out, I haven't heard any other blockers
20:15 <   Halcy0n@> I haven't seen any issues raise, so I'm assuming the PM developers are fine with it.
20:15 <   Calchan+> dberkholz|bb, do we have gentoo dev in charge ?
20:16 <dberkholz|@> does it matter, if we have a way to resolve conflicts with portage, and the council has to approve it?
20:16 <    Cardoe+> Calchan: not exactly. It's technically a sub-project of QA, which is Halcy0n's dept.
20:16 <    Cardoe+> Calchan: however, it's something that's being driven by the developers of the Package Managers with a conflict resolution policy in place
20:17 <    Cardoe+> which is they try to work it out among themselves, there are 3 after all so that's a pretty easy way to get a majority vote
20:17 <   Calchan+> I haven't seen the mail on the conflict resolution thing
20:17 <    Cardoe+> and if it doesn't work, it gets kicked up to the council
20:17 <   ciaranm > a majority isn't enough. we're not microsoft...
20:18 <   Calchan+> who are the 3 ?
20:18 <    Cardoe+> Calchan: Portage, Paludis, and pkgcore
20:18 <   ciaranm > zac for portage, ferringb for pkgcore, about ten of us for paludis
20:18 <   Calchan+> oh, I thought you were talking about persons
20:19 <   Calchan+> and who's doing the conflict resolution ? (anybody got a pointer to the mail ?)
20:20 <   ciaranm > Calchan: the pms editors, if possible, and the council if we can't get everyone to agree
20:20 <   Calchan+> ciaranm, thanks, and who are the pms editors ?
20:20 <   Halcy0n@> This still seems like somewhat of a undocumented process to me.  I'd really like there to be some structure to something as important as this.
20:20 <    musikc > so PMS is maintained by zmedico, ferringb, and ciaranm? i thought it was just ciaranm and spb?
20:20 <   Calchan+> Halcy0n, this is where I was getting at
20:20 <   ciaranm > Calchan: me and spb are editors at the moment
20:20 <   Calchan+> musikc, this was my impression too
20:20 <    Cardoe+> Halcy0n: I was going to suggest a patch to the pms.xml
20:21 <    musikc > ciaranm, shouldnt all of you be editors?
20:21 <   ciaranm > musikc: anyone who sends lots of good patches can be an editor if they want
20:21 <    musikc > since it's a collaboration and not led by any one PM?
20:21 <   antarus > musikc: no one else has asked...
20:21 <       spb > pms is just like any other open source project
20:21 <   Calchan+> ciaranm, please define "lots of good patches" and who will decide
20:21 <       spb > it's developed by those who develop it
20:21 <    musikc > so zmedico and ferringb have access to edit it as well then?
20:22 <jmbsvicett > antarus: Are you sure they were willing or they had reasons to expect becoming editors?
20:22 <    musikc > they should have the same access to edit the doc since its a group effort
20:22 <   ciaranm > Calchan: i'll define that when someone asks
20:22 <   ciaranm > musikc: they can send patches, same as everyone else
20:22 <    musikc > why patches?
20:22 <    musikc > why cant they edit it?
20:22 <    musikc > who gets to decide what goes in and what doesnt?
20:22 <  ColdWind > musikc: if they haven't sent patches, why would they need access?
20:22 <   ciaranm > because nothing gets committed to pms without peer review
20:22 <    musikc > who gets to say what a good patch is?
20:22 <   zmedico > honestly I'm perfectly happy leaving others to edit PMS. I've got other things to work on.
20:23 <   Calchan+> ciaranm, you'll define ? sorry, unacceptable
20:23 <   ciaranm > musikc: anyone who wants to can review patches and raise objections
20:23 <    musikc > ciaranm, ok that makes sense. who are the peers?
20:23 <   ciaranm > musikc: anyone who wants to do reviewing can do so
20:23 <       spb > anyone who's watching the pms-bugs alias
20:23 <   antarus > I should correct that
20:23 <   antarus > 'anyone knowledgeable who wants to do reviewing' ;p
20:23 <       spb > since any changes go there for people to complain before they're committed
20:23 < dberkholz@> ok, i'm on my laptop now
20:23 <    musikc > ciaranm, so only you and spb have commit access and final say unless someone wants to escalate to council?
20:23 <   ciaranm > Calchan: why? it's not an issue yet, and if it ever becomes one we can raise it to the council if necessary
20:24 <   ciaranm > musikc: for now, yes, since no-one else has asked
20:24 <   Calchan+> Halcy0n, we obviously need a gentoo dev in charge here, and if that's not you we need somebody to volunteer
20:24 <Philantrop > musikc: The same discussion was held during the last meeting and that's how the escalation process got created.
20:24 <   antarus > Calchan: why is it obvious?
20:24 <dleverton_ > "Obviously"?
20:24 <       spb > musikc: ultimately, the council has final say since any disagreements can get escalated there
20:24 <   ciaranm > Calchan: what's wrong with the current process? specific examples of where it's gone wrong please.
20:24 <    musikc > Philantrop, i thought the escalation process was for any conflicts. i recall ciaranm stating what if PM's didnt follow PMS, hence the need for resolution process
20:25 < dberkholz@> it seems clear to me that as a QA subproject, Halcy0n would have the final say on who could commit to it, although if there happens to be a specific pms lead, or consensus by the existing pms team, that would also be fine
20:25 <   ciaranm > musikc: you mean the resolution process being "if we can't work it out then we send it to the council", which is what's being discussed?
20:25 <   Calchan+> ciaranm, if it's a gentoo project it needs a gentoo dev as lead, if it's an external project I don't know why we're discussing it
20:25 <   ciaranm > Calchan: uh, since when?
20:26 <  ColdWind > Calchan: what does that gentoo dev need to do?
20:26 <    musikc > dberkholz, ya, it'd make sense if there was a lead or representation from all PM's
20:26 <       spb > there's representation from anyone who sees bugs and writes patches
20:26 <   ciaranm > *if* anyone ever has a problem that can't be resolved, they can just ask the council to discuss it. what's the problem?
20:26 <   Halcy0n@> dberkholz: to me, this seems to still be a hot topic that clearly isn't getting the discussion it deserves on the mailing lists.  I'd recommend the council members bringing up their concerns so its all documented somewhere.
20:27 <   antarus > this is all irrelevant to the actual question
20:27 <   antarus > which was is PMS the draft spec for EAPI 0
20:27 <   antarus > yes/no?
20:27 <Philantrop > antarus++
20:27 <    Cardoe+> I'm actually working on a revised pms page for the QA sub-project
20:27 <   antarus > I don't think 'who can commit to PMS' has anything to do with that
20:27 <    musikc > Halcy0n, makes sense to me
20:27 <   Calchan+> Halcy0n, makes sense to me too
20:28 <      lack > antarus: 'PMS' as in a snapshot of what the repository is now, or 'PMS' as in the entire future of the repository's contents?
20:28 <   antarus > you can discuss all teh beauracratic bullshit later ;p
20:28 <   ciaranm > wasn't this "sent to the mailing lists" last month?
20:28 <   ciaranm > why weren't objections raised then?
20:28 <jmbsvicett > antarus: Last time there were 2 or 3 issues on the draft that were raised as not being accepted by all parties
20:28 < dberkholz@> that's a good question.
20:28 <    musikc > ciaranm, that was 2 weeks ago, perhaps peoples obligations delayed responses?
20:28 <jmbsvicett > antarus: There was also a request to present all such issues to the mls - I didn't notice any mails about them
20:28 <   ciaranm > musikc: for two weeks?
20:28 <    musikc > seems to spark questions again, whats the problem with suggesting it goes to the mailing list
20:29 <Philantrop > jmbsvicetto: Which seems to imply that these issues were resolved.
20:29 <    musikc > ciaranm, sure. i myself was on vacation and in the middle of a lot of project work. just one person's example.
20:29 <   ciaranm > musikc: i was hoping for a decision three months ago...
20:29 <    Cardoe+> musikc: You seem to have some objections. Please send them to the list.
20:29 <   antarus > Philantrop: no it implies no one talked about them ;)
20:29 <Philantrop > antarus: Actually, I know they were talked about. :-)
20:29 <   antarus > if it goes back to the lists you should set a deadline
20:29 <    musikc > Cardoe, not so much objections as thoughts and interest in wht other people think
20:29 <  ColdWind > the same problem is going on since way before the last meeting iirc, and it never gets discussed on the ML
20:29 <    musikc > antarus, that makes complete sense also
20:29 <   antarus > such that issusea are actively being resolved before the deadline
20:29 <   antarus > otherwise we will discuss this forever
20:30 <  ColdWind > it seems you've entered a deadlock
20:30 < dberkholz@> at least having a council meeting every 2 weeks forces people to bring it up that often.
20:30 <   ciaranm > every two weeks people ask the same questions that were asked four weeks ago
20:30 <   antarus > so we are not ready to vote because there were issues from last meeting that were not resolved?
20:30 <   antarus > you have 2 weeks to fix them
20:30 <   antarus > lets move on ;p
20:30 < dberkholz@> i'm trying to put together a list of things people say are blockers
20:30 < dberkholz@> could whoever had one please say it again, directed at me?
20:31 <    musikc > blockers?
20:31 < dberkholz@> we don't want to delay this without specific things that need to be resolved before approving it
20:31 <   Calchan+> dberkholz, lead, doc on structure and processes
20:31 <Philantrop > dberkholz: Please consider the topic and the iussues that were raised here today.
20:31 < dberkholz@> otherwise it goes into the nebulous nowhere
20:31 <    musikc > ahhhh, agree with Calchan
20:31 <   Calchan+> dberkholz, was the conflict resolution discussed on council@ ?
20:31 <   Halcy0n@> dberkholz: what calchan said.  I'd like to see a process since it seems people aren't clear on it.
20:31 <   antarus > I will volunteer as lead if you need for one some reason
20:32  *  antarus shrugs
20:32 < dberkholz@> Halcy0n: a process for what?
20:32  *   musikc votes Halcy0n for lead :)
20:32 <    musikc > HEHE
20:32 <   ciaranm > antarus: i've already got a volunteer gentoo developer to be an arbitrary and pointless figurehead if anyone needs one
20:32 <   antarus > ciaranm: ok :)
20:32 <   Calchan+> dberkholz, I was talking about conflict resolution, I haven't seen anything
20:32 < dberkholz@> Calchan: it was agreed upon at the last meeting. first PM devs & PMS editors try to resolve, and they request council to resolve by vote if they cannot
20:32 <   ciaranm > Calchan: did you see what was discussed at the last meeting?
20:32 <jmbsvicett > dberkholz / Halcy0n: People should also raise any objection to the current content of the PMS draft, before it gets approved
20:33 <   ciaranm > jmbsvicetto: did you see what the question was?
20:33 <    Cardoe+> ciaranm: me? or someone else. Cause I volunteered a few weeks back if that would ease the approval of this.
20:33 <    musikc > jmbsvicetto, good point. has that been raised by anyone yet?
20:33 <   ciaranm > Cardoe: oh, you're number three then :P
20:33 <   ciaranm > musikc: why is it a good point? include references to the question in your answer
20:33 <jmbsvicett > ciaranm: I did. That's why I'm saying anyone with any objection has a last chance to present it before the doc gets approved - "speak now, ..."
20:33 <   Calchan+> dberkholz, then who are the pms editors ? where is this documented ?
20:33 <   ciaranm > jmbsvicetto: er, why is there a last chance?
20:33 <    Cardoe+> Does anyone have any objections to the current content of the PMS?
20:33 <    musikc > ciaranm, what was my question? i think you confised me with someone else
20:34 <   ciaranm > jmbsvicetto: clearly you *didn't* read the question
20:34 <   ciaranm > musikc: you agreeing with jmbsvicetto. i want to know why you're doing that.
20:34 <   ciaranm > especially given how spb specifically covered it being ok to find issues with the EAPI 0 definition even after the level of approval being requested
20:35 <    musikc > b/c i agree with him saying that people should raise any objections to the current content before it gets approved. sounds reasonable to me. :)
20:35 <   Calchan+> Cardoe, I have no problem with the content
20:35 <   ciaranm > except that we're not asking for and never will ask for "this will never change" approval
20:35 <jmbsvicett > ciaranm: Let me be clear. dberkholz is trying to collect issues about PMS and its approval. I'm suggesting that in the next 2 weeks anyone having the slightest objection to the current content of the draft should sent it to the ml and have it discussed before the doc is approved - otherwise, they'll have to live with the doc. This is all I'm saying
20:35 <    musikc > ciaranm, i understand the concept of 'fluid' documents, thanks though
20:35 <   ciaranm > musikc: then why are you agreeing with jmbsvicetto over "last chance"?
20:35 <Philantrop > jmbsvicetto: That has been the case for *months* now and nothing was brought up.
20:36 <   ciaranm > jmbsvicetto: how does that differ from the last three times that's been said?
20:36 <   Halcy0n@> Lets get back on topic here.  The underlying question is should we approve PMS as a draft for EAPI 0 only.  We seem to have some other major concerns, and we should leave it open for us to amend this decision later.
20:36 <    musikc > ciaranm, b/c if someone has an objection currently, wouldnt it make sense that they bring it up? why wait. seems silly if they already know they have an objection.
20:36 < dberkholz@> ok, i have 2 issues as blockers right now
20:36 <    musikc > Halcy0n ++
20:36 <Philantrop > Halcy0n: The concerns are about process, not the contents, though.
20:36 < dberkholz@> one is a PMS lead who is a gentoo dev, and the other is documenting conflict resolution
20:36 <jmbsvicett > Philantrop: true, but it seems no one has ever felt it as a "deadline"
20:37 <   antarus > Philantrop: processes are important
20:37 <   ciaranm > every time we do this a different group of people jumps up and asks the same questions that were asked at the previous meeting, and then it's always postponed to the next meeting for the same questions to be asked over again
20:37 <   antarus > (certainly I'm with you that this should have been approved months ago)
20:37 <Philantrop > antarus: Yes, if they don't work.
20:37 <    musikc > dberkholz, i dont see the process for approval of patches, etc documented. that'd probably be worthwhile as well
20:37 <   antarus > that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to document how things work now ;p
20:37 <   Halcy0n@> Can we stay on topic please?  I have other things I need to run to after this.
20:38 <  ColdWind > So, on one hand, people is not discussing problems with the contents even when that's what's council requested for months. On the other hand, people can still bring up those concerns after PMS approval as a draft standard... that's why it's a draft. Is there any reason to block the approval of the draft forever?
20:38 <    musikc > ColdWind, forever? of course not. postponed while ppl still work to understand the process? sure.
20:38 <   Halcy0n@> Calchan, Cardoe, dberkholz|bb : Are you guys comfortable with the statement I made above?  Lets vote on whether or not to approve PMS as a draft for EAPI 0 only, and leave it open for us to amend the decision later should we find the need to.
20:38 <   antarus > ColdWind: thats what the two week deadline is for ;)
20:38 <    Cardoe+> Halcy0n: yes
20:39 < dberkholz@> do any council members think that documenting a process for patch acceptance is a requirement?
20:39 <   Halcy0n@> dertobi123: ^  that was directed to you as well
20:39 <  ColdWind > musikc: there will be *always* someone who still doesn't understands the process, so yes, with this dynamic... this is effectively blocked forever.
20:40 <    musikc > ColdWind, agreed so documentation helps :)
20:40 <   Halcy0n@> dberkholz: I don't see it as a blocker for approving it as an initial draft right now, but I want it documented.
20:40 <    Cardoe+> alright. everyone let's take a breather for a second. Let's us wrap up the actual question at hand. Further concerns can be approached on list.
20:40 <dertobi123@> Halcy0n: yep
20:40 <Calchan|Ho > sorry, apparently my irc proxy went down
20:41 <    musikc > so post poned until documented Halcy0n?
20:41 <   Calchan+> ColdWind,
20:41 <    Cardoe+> ciaranm: what's the official ml to bring up discussions about patches? or should it remain on the bug?
20:41 <   ciaranm > Cardoe: we're using the pms-bugs alias for now
20:41 <   Halcy0n@> musikc: no, I don't mind doing the initial approval, and getting the documentation laid down afterwards.
20:41  *   musikc nods
20:42 <    Cardoe+> ciaranm: any requirements to join the alias? or just get someone with commit access to that file to add you?
20:42 <    musikc > Halcy0n, that makes sense and goes with ciaranm's expressed view of PMS always up for change
20:42 <   ciaranm > Cardoe: the only requirement is that you not be so amazingly annoying that we feel obliged to move somewhere else
20:42 < dberkholz@> could you tone it down a bit, ciaranm ..
20:42 <    musikc > ciaranm, any gentoo dev should be welcome since PMS is a standard for Gentoo :)
20:43 <   Halcy0n@> Council people, are we ready to vote?
20:43 <    Cardoe+> Halcy0n: yes
20:43 <   Calchan+> I'm ready to vote
20:43 <   ciaranm > dberkholz: mm? what did i say?
20:43 <dertobi123@> yes
20:43 <   ciaranm > musikc: any qualified gentoo developer
20:43 <    musikc > ciaranm, who determines who is qualified?
20:43 <   ciaranm > any qualified anyone. being a gentoo developer is neither here not there
20:43 <    musikc > Gentoo has determined any dev is qualified as this is a standard for Gentoo so they should all be welcome
20:43 <   ciaranm > musikc: it's yet to be an issue, so we haven't had to determine it
20:44 <   Halcy0n@> dberkholz: are you?
20:44 <    musikc > ciaranm, so all Gentoo devs should be welcome
20:44 < dberkholz@> Halcy0n: i'm thinking
20:44 <   ciaranm > musikc: dunno. does gentoo still have developers who don't know what 'grep' is?
20:44 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+m] by Halcy0n
20:44 <   Halcy0n@> Just to reduce the noise so we can make a decision on the original topic.
20:45 <dertobi123@> thanks Halcy0n
20:45 < dberkholz@> here's what i'm thinking. we have these 2 blocking issues. will either of them have an impact on pms as a draft standard?
20:45 <    Cardoe+> dberkholz: what do you see as the two?
20:45 < dberkholz@> the two i said earlier
20:46 < dberkholz@> 20:36 < dberkholz@> one is a PMS lead who is a gentoo dev, and the other is  documenting conflict resolution
20:47 <dertobi123@> one of these issues is about having a puppet or not having a puppet as a lead, this is a non-issue from my pov
20:47 < dberkholz@> what exact benefits would having a pms lead as a gentoo dev gain us?
20:47 <   Calchan+> dberkholz, a half baked pms project is the best way to have it crash into a wall, so we want this ?
20:47 <   Calchan+> s/so/do/
20:47 <   Halcy0n@> dberkholz: if we want the project to remain useful, I think we should document it before we start pushing it on people as a standard, in draft form or any other.
20:48 <    Cardoe+> While people might feel emotional about a PMS lead that is a Gentoo dev, it's not necessarily a requirement. It's a Gentoo project controlled by the Gentoo QA project as a whole. Who runs the PMS sub-project is no consequence to how good or bad it is.
20:48 < dberkholz@> document what?
20:48 <   Halcy0n@> dberkholz: sorry, the conflict resolution and patch approval process.
20:49 <    Cardoe+> Halcy0n: do we want to create a pms ML so that the pms-bugs alias isn't being used/abused?
20:49 <    Cardoe+> bugzilla can mail changes to the ML for affected bugs
20:49 <dertobi123@> Cardoe: agreed, ideally there would be a gentoo dev interested in that - but as long there's noone ...
20:49 <   Halcy0n@> Cardoe: it would be best so others could join the list and conversations.
20:50 <    Cardoe+> and publicly provide archives
20:50 < dberkholz@> are there discussions happening on pms-bugs rather than just bugs posted to it?
20:50 <   Halcy0n@> dberkholz: that has been the case in the past, yes.
20:52 <    Cardoe+> Halcy0n: can you tell us the last e-mail across it?
20:52 <    Cardoe+> actually never mind
20:53 <    Cardoe+> Creating a mailing list I don't believe would be opposed (anyone opposing can PM me now) and would allow public transparency into the process and would allow for review of the process in the future so I think it's a plus moving forward.
20:53 <   Halcy0n@> Cardoe: its mostly been submitted patches.
20:53 <   Halcy0n@> And discussions of those patches.
20:53 <    Cardoe+> which sounds a bit like a ML already
20:54 < dberkholz@> http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20080911-agenda.txt has the list of requirements i've collected
20:54 <   Halcy0n@> dberkholz: that looks good to me.
20:55 <   Calchan+> dberkholz, yes, looks good
20:55 <    Cardoe+> So from that list does anyone see any that would prevent you from voting yes today to the PMS as a draft standard for EAPI 0 and 1?
20:55 <    Cardoe+> I don't see any that would prevent me from voting yes today. Of course, I reserve the option to change that going forward since we are working with a live document.
20:56 <   Calchan+> Cardoe, yes, I don't see the point voting for something unfinished when we could vote for the same finished thing in 2 weeks
20:56 < dberkholz@> by making it a draft standard, what we're saying is that it is now a requirement to resolve conflicts between it and package managers
20:56 < dberkholz@> there's not much value in approving a spec that doesn't match reality
20:57 <    Cardoe+> correct
20:57 <    Cardoe+> I think we have 2 outstanding issues between Portage/pkgcore & PMS/Paludis
20:58 <    Cardoe+> Which can be a very good test to see how people will resolve this.
20:59 <   Halcy0n@> Alright, we are at the end, can we vote?
20:59 <   Calchan+> Halcy0n, yes
20:59 <   Calchan+> I mean, yes I can vote
21:00 <    Cardoe+> let's do it
21:00 < dberkholz@> ok
21:00 <dertobi123@> yep, let's vote
21:00 < dberkholz@> do we want to specify that our acceptance is conditional upon those requirements being resolved?
21:00 <    Cardoe+> 3 choices..
21:01 <    Cardoe+> Yes, Yes conditional upon requirements being resolved, No
21:01 < dberkholz@> i'm gonna go with #2.
21:01 <   Halcy0n@> I'm with #2 as well
21:02 <    Cardoe+> #2 here
21:02 <dertobi123@> #2 too
21:02 <   Calchan+> I vot 3 in the present state
21:02 <dertobi123@> being solved until the next meeting i'd suggest in addition
21:02 <   Calchan+> s/vot/vote/
21:02 < dberkholz@> i agree w/ dertobi123 -- 2 weeks to resolve. there's nothing major there
21:03 <    Cardoe+> Do we want to vote on creating a ML now or let it be discussed on the ML first?
21:03 <dertobi123@> creating that ML sounds like a logical thing to me, so vote and yes please
21:03 < dberkholz@> i'm pretty sure that's what we just did. making a list was one of the reqs, and we just voted to accept given the reqs.
21:04 <   Halcy0n@> dberkholz: agreed.  I have to run now.
21:04 < dberkholz@> ok
21:04 <   Calchan+> thanks Halcy0n
21:05 < dberkholz@> that's it for this meeting
21:05 <    Cardoe+> I agree with creating the ML
21:05 <   Calchan+> dberkholz, weren't we supposed to discuss eapi2 ?
21:05 < dberkholz@> do people not read my posts?
21:05 < dberkholz@> that kind of discussion is for lists, not meetings
21:05 < dberkholz@> plus we hit our hourly limit
21:06 <   Calchan+> dberkholz, ah sorry, I understood we'd discuss it here
21:06 <    Cardoe+> dberkholz: The discussion was over.. the final list was submitted afaik
21:06 < dberkholz@> there have been multiple replies on it today
21:07 < dberkholz@> that just isn't enough time
21:07 < dberkholz@> i'm happy to vote on it on -council though
21:07 < dberkholz@> if not, we can vote it in 2 wks
21:07 <   Calchan+> somebody should reopen the channel then
21:08 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [-m] by dberkholz
21:08 < dberkholz@> meeting's over
21:08 < dberkholz@> thanks for playing
21:08 < dberkholz@> http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20080911-agenda.txt has summary